The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Are you looking to buy The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy? Here is the right place to find the great deals. we can offer discounts of up to 90% on The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Check out the link below:

>> Click Here to See Compare Prices and Get the Best Offers

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy ReviewBy getting the second edition of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy I believe to have achieved the best dictionary of this kind. But when I say "the best" I mean "the best there is" and not "the best there could be", since, apart from the enormous and useful information offered by this work, which is in no way comparable with others of the same kind that I have read or consulted, there are certain lacks that bothered me. In my opinion, there are three critics that can be opposed to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. The first one is the preponderance of the information concerning modern Philosophy and Logic, which is not justified by the importance of the concepts or authors involved. For example, the article concerning the theory of "possible worlds" (which has really been given enough importance only in the last half of the XXth century) is longer than the article concerning Zeno's paradoxes. Also, minor philosophers and logicians of the XXth century are presented in distinct articles, while the presocratics (Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Anaxagoras etc.) are all presented in one article and some of them didn't even get their name mentioned. The second critic is similar to the first one, but it concerns a certain part of non-modern Philosophy: the scholastic (medieval) one. The schools, authors, works and concepts of this age are presented partially or aren't presented at all. Examples: I couldn't find any information about Joachim Jungus or about his "Logica Hamburgensis"; Raymundus Lullus is presented in an article of the same length as the one about a Chinese neo-Confucian philosopher that lived a century before him and didn't make any great revolution or anticipation in oriental Philosophy (as Lullus did in European Logic and Algebra); the discussion of the universals has no article of her own, only one side of the discussion (the realism) being presented and the other one (nominalism) ignored, not to speak of the authors involved in this discussion, most of them not being mentioned. Finally, it bothered me the accentuation of Anglo-Saxon Philosophy and Logic, understandable only if the dictionary would have been written for the use of the people from UK or US (the utility of this dictionary, in my opinion, was meant to be universal). I believe it to be unjustified to present a Scottish philosopher such as Mary Sheperd (whose influence in philosophy is minor) in a dictionary that ignores important thinkers of Antique Philosophy. However, since I don't mean to discourage the possible buyer or reader, I repeat what I've said in the beginning: although it has certain lacks and could have been written in a better way, I believe that the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is the best work of this kind. Not only somebody interested in Philosophy as a hobby, but also somebody who is or intends to get specialized in Philosophy will find in this work useful information, that one might have problems in finding using ordinary dictionaries.The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy Overview

Want to learn more information about The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy?

>> Click Here to See All Customer Reviews & Ratings Now